
As we noted here yesterday, ATF just took a big hit in federal court. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix has ruled in Jensen v. ATF that the government can no longer enforce the National Firearms Act registry for things like suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
The legal logic is pretty straightforward, even in a world where case law often treats the Second Amendment like a second-class right. Last year, Congress zeroed out the $200 transfer tax in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Back in 1937, the Supreme Court only allowed the National Firearms Act to exist because it was a tax framework, barely keeping it within the theoretical powers of Congress.
With the tax now gone, the constitutional justification that anti-gun courts have had for fingerprinting you and making you wait months for a piece of paper is no longer there, leaving the court with no choice but to rule the NFA unconstitutional.
Don’t go out and assemble that SBR yet, though. Judge Hendrix put a seven-day hold on his ruling so the Department of Justice can appeal. And the ruling will only apply to the plaintiffs and their members.
But, here’s the part you might not know: The DOJ doesn’t actually have to defend the NFA. They’re under no obligation at all to appeal the ruling.
Sure, career government lawyers usually file appeals automatically to defend federal laws. They see it as their job. But, the DOJ is part of the executive branch, and President Trump is the guy at the top. He’s the one who signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law that zeroed out the tax in the first place. Just as President Obama chose to have his DOJ decline to defend laws banning gay marriage, Trump can just as easily leave the NFA out in the legal cold and let it starve to death.
All it takes is one phone call to the (acting) Attorney General telling the DOJ to stand down and decline to appeal. In a week, if you’re a member or customer of one of the plaintiffs, you can order a suppressor or build that SBR or SBS. In two months, the ruling will become permanent and future administrations can’t appeal.
You may be thinking about what happens down the road. If the NFA only died because the tax is zero, couldn’t a future anti-gun president just bring it back? Wouldn’t charging even a dollar for transfers raise it from the dead?
First off, it would take more than an executive order. The only way to revive the registry would be for a future Congress to pass a new bill that reestablishes the transfer tax. But, let’s look at the reality of how hard it’s been to pass any gun control in recent years. Polls show rising support for gun rights across the board, and it’s become a third rail only Congresscritters from the deepest of blue states want to touch. And even if they managed to pass a new NFA tax, it would have to get past the president.
By the time we get a president who’d actually sign a new NFA tax into law, Americans will have spent years buying even more suppressors, SBRs and SBSs over the counter, the same way they buy guns now. Going back to Form 4s and permission slips would be a political nightmare. Nobody wants to be the bad guy who takes away a convenience millions of people are used to having.
Instead of hoping for a future court victory, give the White House a call. Let Trump know that we don’t want him wasting any more government time and money defending a law that he himself helped make unconstitutional. It’s not much of an ask for him to expect him to pick up a phone to defend the right to keep and bear arms.


“All it takes is one phone call to the (acting) Attorney General telling the DOJ to stand down and decline to appeal.”
No, it doesn’t. The president can’t legally or constitutionally do that.
The DOJ has a legal and constitutional duty and obligation to defend and prosecute laws of the United States until they determine they can’t any longer or its not in best interest of the law. It would be an ‘unlawful order’ for Trump to call them up and tell the DOJ to “stand down and decline to appeal”. It is completely a DOJ decision to appeal or not.
The president cannot direct the Department of Justice (DOJ) to not defend a law, an appeal would be a defense of the law.
We saw what happened with the tyrannical Biden admin directing the DOJ on what to prosecute or investigate or not… a lot of made-up charges, and persecution, and censorship, along with ‘secret investigations’ into honest law abiding people who bought bibles or went to church or bought a gun or spoke out, even a murder or two and one in particular when the Biden admin via directing the DOJ to let the ATF investigate an innocent man with zero evidence so they could ‘set an example’.
The DOJ has a legal and constitutional duty and obligation to defend and prosecute laws of the United States until they determine they can’t any longer or its not in best interest of the law. Its called ‘prosecutorial independence’, and is to ensure that ‘prosecutorial decisions’ are free from political influence and are based solely on the merits of individual cases.
So no, President Trump can’t legally or constitutionally make a “phone call to the (acting) Attorney General telling the DOJ to stand down and decline to appeal.” – It is completely a DOJ decision to appeal or not.
He can discuss it with them or even express his own wishes, and even give some forms of suggestive direction for what he would like to happen – after all he is their boss – but he can’t legally or constitutionally tell them to “stand down and decline to appeal”.
“Just as President Obama chose to have his DOJ decline to defend laws banning gay marriage…”
Just because Obama and Biden did stuff like that and got away with it does not mean it was legal or constitutional for them to do what they did.
In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Obama had decided the law banning gay marriage was unconstitutional, and instructed DOJ to stop defending it.
The president can’t decide a law is unconstitutional and then order the DOJ to stop defending it based upon a basis of ‘unconstitutionality’. It takes SCOTUS or a federal court to decide the constitutionality of a law to determine if it can or can not be enforced or defended – this is exactly one of the the reasons we have ‘separation of powers’, so the president can’t make such decisions to not enforce or defend a law – the presidents only constitutional authority in the matter of the law is to ensure they are enforced, not basically repeal them by simply ordering the DOJ to not defend a law. The president can say a law is unconstitutional and direct the DOJ to consider its constitutionality in their decisions, but he can’t direct the DOJ to stop defending a law based upon a basis of ‘unconstitutionality’. What Obama did was illegal and unconstitutional and he got away with it because he had a weak and incompetent ‘yes man’ attorney general. The correct thing for Attorney General Eric Holder to have done was decline to follow Obamas order and then carry out the duty and responsibility he was legally and constitutionally obligated to which was defend and prosecute laws of the United States until the DOJ determines they can’t any longer or its not in best interest of the law. Biden had the same type of weak and incompetent ‘yes man’ attorney general with Merrick Garland.